OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

LINDA
V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

This
matter is before the Court as an appeal from the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
the Honorable Thomas J. Tucker presiding. This is the third
appeal Debtor and Appellant Glenn Richard Underwood
(“Underwood”) has filed arising from his Chapter
11 bankruptcy case and the adversary proceedings he commenced
against several judgment creditors and the bankruptcy
liquidating trustee, Gene R. Kohut (“Liquidating
Trustee”). This Court dismissed Underwood's first
appeal (Civil Case No. 15-10155) as untimely and recently
issued a decision in his second appeal (Civil Case No.
15-12563) affirming the bankruptcy court's decisions.
Underwood now seeks to appeal Judge Tucker's May 5, 2016
order in the Chapter 11 case overruling his objections to the
Liquidating Trustee's proposed sale of real property
commonly known as Lots 81 and 82, 9230 Dixie Highway,
Clarkston, Michigan 48348 (“Dixie Highway
Property”).

Background

Underwood
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to protect himself from a
judgment entered against him in the Circuit Court for Oakland
County, Michigan and in favor of several of his family
members: Julie McCarver, Jane Staebell, Patricia Selent,
Thomas Underwood, Julia Snead, Lynda Carto, and D. Jeanette
Sullivan (hereafter “Judgment Creditors”). After
granting summary judgment in favor of the Judgment Creditors,
the circuit court judge entered a judgment in the amount of
$392, 752, plus interest, against Underwood. Underwood
appealed and the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the grant
of summary disposition to the Judgment Creditors, but vacated
the judgment and remanded the matter for recalculation of
damages. On remand, the Oakland County Circuit judge entered
a revised judgment of $200, 923 against Underwood.

On July
24, 2007, while the appeal was pending, the bankruptcy court
entered an order confirming Underwood's Chapter 11
bankruptcy plan. Order, In re Underwood, No.
06-55754 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. July 24, 2007), ECF No. 114. The
bankruptcy plan provides that the Judgment Creditors possess
allowed claims against Underwood “only to the extent
that [they] are deemed to have a claim against [Underwood]
after all appellate rights are exhausted by [Underwood] and
the claims by the Judgment Creditors … against
[Underwood] are both final and non-appealable under the laws
of the State of Michigan.” Id. at 2-3. The
amount of the claims, the plan states, is in the amount
determined by the Michigan courts. Id. at 4. The
plan requires Underwood to pay the Judgment Creditors
“by the later of (1) May 31, 2008; or (2) ten (10) days
after all appellate rights are exhausted by [Underwood] and
the claims by the Judgment Creditors … against
[Underwood] are both final and non-appealable under the laws
of the State of Michigan (‘Disbursement
Date').” Id.

Pursuant
to a stipulation between Underwood and the Judgment
Creditors, the bankruptcy plan was modified on October 13,
2008. Stip. & Order, id., ECF No. 169. The
modified plan requires Underwood inter alia to
execute quit claim deeds to the Liquidating Trustee with
respect to the following properties: (a) 6086 and 6185 White
Lake Road, White Lake, MI; (b) 9230 Dixie Highway (with four
lots), Clarkston, MI; (c) 9237 Hillcrest, Clarkston, MI; and
(d) 137 Hudson and 158 Summit (4 units), Pontiac, MI. The
modified plan orders the Liquidating Trustee to “hold
the quit claim deeds in escrow and not record the same until
twenty (20) days after all appellate rights are exhausted by
[Underwood] and the claims by the Judgment Creditors …
against [Underwood] are both final and non- appealable under
the laws of the State of Michigan.” Id. at 3.
The modified bankruptcy plan provides that, after such time,
the Liquidating Trustee may record the deeds and “to
the extent reasonably necessary … effectuate the sale
of such real property in order to satisfy any outstanding
obligation to the Judgment Creditors on Appeal or the
Liquidating [Trustee].” Id.

Underwood
filed multiple lawsuits in the state courts seeking to
overturn the Oakland County Circuit Court's judgment. His
attempts were unsuccessful. Underwood then initiated
adversary proceedings in the bankruptcy court against the
Judgment Creditors and Liquidating Trustee, again attempting
to challenge the validity of the state court judgment. In his
adversary complaint, Underwood also alleged that the
Liquidating Trustee had wrongfully transferred some of the
above-referenced properties directly to the Judgment
Creditors.

In a
December 10, 2014 decision, Judge Tucker rejected
Underwood's challenges to the state court judgment. In a
July 9, 2015 decision, Judge Tucker concluded that the
Liquidating Trustee lacked the authority to transfer the
properties directly to the Judgment Creditors and ordered
that they be transferred back to the Liquidating Trustee and
that the Liquidating Trustee then be allowed to perform the
duties required of him with respect to the properties in
accordance with the modified bankruptcy plan. The current
appeal arises only from the Liquidating Trustee's attempt
to sell the Dixie Highway Property.

On
February 2, 2016, the Liquidating Trustee-in accordance with
procedures outlined in the modified bankruptcy plan-filed and
served a 15-day notice of his intention to sell the Dixie
Highway Property for the sum of $65, 000 to Angona
Construction Company. Cert. of Service, In re
Underwood, No. 06-55754 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. filed Feb. 2,
2016), ECF No. 224. Underwood filed an objection to the sale
on February 16, 2016. Obj., id., ECF No. 225. In
addition to claiming that the sale price was too low,
Underwood objected based on many of the same arguments he has
raised in numerous state and federal court proceedings to
challenge the state court judgment. Id. On February
29, 2016, Judge Tucker issued an order overruling all of
Underwood's objections except for his sale price
objection. Order, id., ECF No. 227. On March 16,
2016, Judge Tucker held a hearing to address the remaining
objection and ordered additional briefing and the submission
of relevant evidence. Id.

On May
5, 2016, after receiving and reviewing the additional
submissions, Judge Tucker entered an order overruling
Underwood's objection to the Liquidating Trustee's
sale of the Dixie Highway Property. Order, id., ECF
No. 240. Judge Tucker found and concluded “that the
Liquidating [Trustee]'s business judgment-that the
proposed sale price for the Property is a fair price-is a
‘reasonable business judgment, ' within the meaning
of the October 14, 2008 Order modifying the Debtor's
confirmed Chapter 11 plan.” Id. at 2. Judge
Tucker ordered that the Liquidating Trustee may close the
proposed sale and stated that his order was effective
immediately. Id. at 6.

Analysis

A final
order of the bankruptcy court may be appealed as of right
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). For purposes of
appeal, a final order “ends the litigation on the
merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the
judgment.” Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United
States, 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989) (citations omitted).
“[W]here an order in a bankruptcy case finally
dispose[s] of discrete disputes within the larger case, it
may be appealed immediately.” Winget v. J.P. Morgan
Chase Bank, N.A., 537 F.3d 565, 579 (6th Cir.2008). A
bankruptcy court's order authorizing the sale of property
of the estate is an appealable final order.[1]In re LWD,
Inc., 335 F. App'x 523, 528 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing
Precision Indus., Inc. v. Qualitech Steel SBQ, LLC,
327 F.3d 537, 543 (7th Cir. 2003); Winget, 537 F.3d
at 578). Thus, this Court concludes that Underwood should be
allowed to appeal Judge Tucker's May 5, 2016 order.

That
order only addressed Underwood's objection to the sale
price for the Dixie Highway Property. Underwood's motion
for leave to appeal reflects that he intends to argue before
this Court that Judge Tucker's evaluation of the
proeprty's value was wrong. It also reflects, however,
that he intends to re-litigate arguments regarding the
validity of the Oakland County Circuit Court judgment.
Underwood has challenged the validity of the judgment in
several state court proceedings, leading the Michigan Court
of Appeals to conclude that his continued pursuit of those
issues was vexatious. He also attempted to raise the same
challenges in the bankruptcy court. As set forth in this
Court's opinion and order in Underwood's ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.